Edit: I'm removing my own copy, since I just realized I didn't set up a contact for that site, and I'd rather play it safe than sorry. Others have mirrored it, and one's on YouTube at present:
people have, but who knows how long it'll last
QmX5wjpMyWrtwHQnJ6L8BMAnUGgxwJqnoLbTCJbmWD1gqG - 720p
QmNPNYTMD95vc6PZtH5QFgLTj22cNkWm6TTCi7YGKY3kD3 - 270p
I may have to do some finagling, since I'm new to IPFS, and never have dealt with files this large on IPFS either.
Looks like the highres version also should be working
All joking aside- I remember watching ed Snowden go from being a "whistleblower" to a "leaker" in the space of 8 hours. I watched Alexandria ocasio Cortez go from a bold new voice to being portrayed as a know-nothing (in a pretty sexist way) in about 6 hours. I remember how all the media were creaming themselves with excitement over the wmd's they were going to find in Iraq. I observe how the crimes of saudi Arabia are getting papered over and not reported right now. So yeah.. not surprising.
Are you kidding ? She said US military was given $700 billion increase that they didn't ask for. She said that US unemployment is low becuase everyone has two jobs. She said ICE has to detain 34,000 people every night by law. http://www.politifact.com/personalities/alexandria-ocasio-co...
This 'if you criticise Democrat female politicians you must be sexist' line is incredibly annoying
Is there a rating worse than "Pants On Fire" we could brand this liar with?
(I don't know about sexist but the media sure is dumb and pedantic as shit.)
No, she wasn't. There are lots of successful female politicians. She was criticized for being a moron.
Anyway, keep telling yourself that you understand people’s motives, and that they’re bad. In the real world, sexism and racism are not nearly as extreme as you’d think from the perspective of the tumblr echo chamber.
I've read a lot of critique of O-C but never "for being female". Could you quote some critique like that so that it would be clear what do you mean? I honestly absolutely can't even imagine how such thing would look like: "We know O-C is female and thus unfit to hold an elective office..." or what? Name the most hostile press outlet to O-C outside wacko forums and 4chan and it would never dare to print something like that. Sure, there are sexists here and there, but openly and publicly criticizing a major political figure "for being female"? It's just rhetorical suicide. You must mean something else, but what?
This is a terrible overstatement. It's not even the first time she has fought against an ump, and not even the worst she has said. End of career lol.
Its interesting to think about Brietbart putting this out there as some 'evil' thing, given what their all hands meeting would have looked like if the election had gone the other way. But from a tech perspective its always destabilizing to endorse a political ideology just like it is destabilizing to endorse a religious ideology in what is a collective for economic output.
That said, the previous tech position of 'hands off' (very limited engagement except for very specific technical issues like ITAR restrictions on strong crypto) did not do tech any favors when it came to legislation. I'm not sure what the answer is here other than "its complicated."
Never worked at Google, but as they say it went about as I would have expected based on my outside perspective. Or at least I wasn't stunned by anything in particular...
Overall I think what people dislike is the disconnect between the PR message of "all opinions are welcome / we are open / neutral" vs the reality of them being fairly uniform in political affiliation. I think they might do better to just own it and stop pretending. Say something like "yeah we are biased and proud of it and we stand firm behind these values etc."
That’s something the Breitbart audience can’t wrap their mind around, as they’d never do the same.
Which clearly reveals _your_ bias. Well done.
You can't compare Google to the ACLU.
The ACLU has a track record defending free speech and freedom of expression. As long as the speech and expression does not contravene any laws the ACLU will defend it – it's irrelevant to them what values the speech and expression they are defending promotes or espouses. And, when you think about it, it's very unlikely that the ACLU will be forced to defend speech and expression nobody has a problem with so they are going to be defending speech and expression that gets peoples backs up.
Google on the other hand has no consistent track record of being neutral when it comes to content on their platforms. There's no transparency and insight into their deliberation processes. So if the group-think at Google comes down on one side or the other and they don't have a hands-off approach then that's very worrying. Of course, if you subscribe to Google's version of reality then you're going to be very happy with that but if you don't then too bad for you. If tech companies want to alienate a good chunk of their user base then they better be prepared for the backlash up to and including regulation and migration away to services that do a better job at upholding the ideals of free speech and expression.
Google has been very consistent in showing its bias for an open, connected, free world where quality information is accessible. It was formed by immigrants, and has been vocal in their importance. The Trump campaign was the exact opposite of all of these things... a closed world busting traditional order apart, kicking out those “rapist criminal” immigrants, equating any quality information that disagreed as “fake news” despite the election has an unprecedented amount of actually fake and totally fabricated news spreading like wildfire to sell online ads. AdWords got caught up in it, and that had very real world consequences.
That’s what the reaction was, and it feels appropriate to me. That was a very somber day, and to many of us who believed in a free and open world it felt like a day of mourning.
All that said, doesn’t mean Google hasn’t been and can’t be neutral to data. If they aren’t, then they lose business and open themselves up to lawsuits as a monopoly abusing their power. Nothing you’ve said points to the fact that they’ve actually silenced “non-left” news. And having worked there twice, the culture I observed is such that they’d never want to do such things. It’s antithetical to their world view to silence political viewpoints (as opposed to genuinely made up clickbait garbage for the soul purpose of ads).
I guess that's why they've been working with China to create censored sub-internet?
> It was formed by immigrants,
It was formed by Page and Brin, only Brin can be classified as "immigrant" and even him not of his own volition - he was brought in the US by his parents when he was 6.
> Nothing you’ve said points to the fact that they’ve actually silenced “non-left” news.
If by "silenced" you mean completely prevented access, then yes, Google does not have this power. Fortunately, almost nobody does. Biasing the picture, though, is another matter. US politics as it is now is often balancing on results of pretty close elections, and couple of thousands of votes thrown either way can do a lot. Google has access to data about billions, including vast majority of people in the US. People at Google are not shy about proclaiming at which side there are, and some also not shy about declaring they utter lack of respect and tolerance to the other side. Maybe there's a line they still would not cross and that line is way before it could influence any work decisions - but how exactly we can know that and believe that?
> And having worked there twice, the culture I observed is such that they’d never want to do such things
Are you sure that your acknowledged bias did not make you miss the willingness to suppress views that both you and your peers vehemently disagree with and hold despicable?
> It’s antithetical to their world view to silence political viewpoints
It's not what it looks like on the outside, at least. Just throw in "it's ok to be intolerant to those bad outgroup people" and you're in the clear. I don't see any hard commitment to free speech from Google. Maybe the people you've encountered that have this commitment are not actually those who dictate the policies?
Surely. But that seems to be a basic assumptions in these quarters - if you hold certain views, they can't but influence who you are and how you do all things, including work. Isn't that the premise Damore and others were fired under? Isn't that the premise people get disinvited from tech conferences under - even if their politics has nothing to do with technology, their presence and others knowing about it can't but influence the interactions with them and the products they create, consciously or unconsciously.
But it can not work only in some cases - if we recognize that these things are unseparable, then it becomes impossible to claim Google being biased hard to the left has no influence on their decisions, including product decisions.
Example: if somebody who is working on search rankings writes an ML model to define what "reputable source" looks like, and by nature of their views they read only left-leaning publications, then the model will be trained in majority on such publications as "reputable", and would likely treat non-left-leaning ones as less reputable. Even without explicit intention of bias, the bias would be there. Moreover, since most of the people in Google would hold the same views, nobody would notice that bias as the output of the model would look exactly like they expect it to look.
What is their product? Sure, if product is Android OS, or some wearable devices, yes, they are not biased anyone can buy and use them.
But are they also involved in filtering news, manipulating search results, tracking phone locations, hosting emails, selling ads, censoring or not censoring youtube videos etc.
Then "products" is not the only way a company like Google is effecting change in the world. They match employee donations to charitable organizations, they lobby the government (more than Verizon, military contractors and Wall St. banks), work with the government on drone AI software. Now they are thinking of moving back into China's market with all the privacy implications there, etc.
I think they are far from a "but they are just making a product and selling it, so leave them alone" type of company.
And of course, we might say here that Google's values match with ours so we'll give them the benefit of the doubt. And even though their executives cry on camera after their political candidate loses, when they turn around and go to lobby the government or to police youtube videos, they'll regain their cool and be unbiased. I'd like to believe that, but sure we can see why others might not.
Is it destabilizing at all? The British Empire, one of the world's most economically successful projects, had its own religious ideology. The US has a "Protestant work ethic." When have we historically seen the adoption of religion as destabilizing?
It might be wrong, sure, but I don't think we have evidence to conclude that it's unprofitable.
And about to kick off again thanks to Brexit, because it was never really solved, just pushed aside for long enough for people (particularly people in Westminster) to start to forget.
Anyone find this disturbing? They're trying to use AI to manipulate what users 'should' see?
Beyond just Google, this is an inevitable result of having any which resembles the internet we know today. The alternative is to go back to human gatekeepers. While it is arguable if human gatekeepers are better from a consumption standpoint, it is clear that they are worse from a production standpoint, as it massivly increases the barriers to publication.
 In actuality, I suspect that Google's "algorithm" involves a fair bit of "cheating" by having humans nudge the results. Political bias aside, I think not doing this would leave them too open to attack from other players in the market who do.
There is a practical difference between pagerank, which is a transparent algorithm, and a non-transparent magic algorithm that is controlled by a group who are clearly not engaged with the idea of corporate political neutrality. Taking the views expressed here as a starting point, logically why shouldn't they try to tilt the election result using their power?
EDIT I'm just going to add this in because it just doesn't sit well. It shouldn't acceptable for leadership in a workplace to stand up and express pain and dismay at the outcome of a democratic process.
However, at a meta-level, there is some public information about how Google decides whether a change is making things better or worse. This doesn't tell you how the algorithm works, but it shows the goal they're optimizing for.
Google has "over 10,000 human raters" that rate search engine results. I don't know how they choose the raters, but presumably it's a variety of people in each country. You can read about them here:
Also, the guidelines that the human raters are supposed to follow are public, and you can read them here:
Political neutrality is just political support of the status quo. That is a perfectly acceptable political stance to take, but you should recognize it is still a political stance.
The same thing applies in any fight/conflict/argument/debate when there is a power imbalance including in politics. This is most obvious in debates about civil rights. When it comes to those issues if you don't support an oppressed people you are endorsing the continue oppression of that people.
I assume you feel it is appropriate for leadership to express dismay about some things, so what makes democratic processes special?
Basically, there is no way whatsoever that being a capable and talented corporate leader makes your opinion somehow right. If anything, the comforts of great wealth and power make it less likely that their opinion actually represents the best interests of ordinary folk. So my starting point is that the opinion of Google's leaders is not more valid than anyone else's.
Then the second aspect is that they are on that stage in official capacities as leadership of Google. So they are representing the company's views to their employees.
Combining those two, why should republican voters in Google have to experience what is basically a public condemning of their vote? It isn't professional to publicly condemn the views of half your customers and potentially a large percentage of your workforce for no legitimate business reason.
Obviously, the concerns about possible immigration issues I would accept as completely relevant. I'm not sure if that has actually affected Google's business operations - but that aspect wasn't the main focus of the all-hands. The focus of the all-hands was clearly dismay that an unpopular Republican candidate had taken office. It wouldn't have happened had the alternative, an unpopular Democratic candidate, taken office.
So with these thoughts in mind, I don't think it is an acceptable situation. If this were a more traditional public company I'd like to believe professionalism would have been maintained.
 I do not have a good idea of what such a standard would even look like, and would err on the side of being too lax in this regard.
It is better to have a policy of factual correctness at a minimum. Politicians should adjust to accommodate that.
And I assume ALL search engines should be equally regulated.
Also, you better be pretty specific about what politically neutral really means.
For example, I just started a political party devoted to spreading obvious lies. Political neutrality means I should have top billing, right? Above the fold? Even though no one needs or wants what I’m selling?
Isn't this exactly what they do whenever they lobby to change an existing law?
-- Whether it is a hunting accessories business advocating for 2nd amendment rights,
-- An enormous craft supply store (hobby lobby) using religious beliefs to decide what their employees insurance will cover,
-- A shoe company (Nike) hiring a controversial spokesperson (Kaepernick),
-- A coffee company (Starbucks) choosing to say holiday rather than pander to a religious sect,
-- A bakery refusing to sell cakes to lgbtq folks,
-- Enormous corps spending massive money to disrupt any employees attempts to discuss whether or not they wish to unionize,
-- A software ceo donating sums of money to groups trying to ban lgbtq marriage,
-- Fossil fuel spending billions to support candidates who support their business interests,
-- Renewable energy industries supporting candidates who support renewable energy projects,
-- A famous software ceo providing substantial funding for lawsuits to bring down popular liberal media sites he disagrees with,
I find it incredibly confusing why people pretend like this is a new thing, or that silicon valley is alone in this, or that the left shouldn't be allowed to use the same tools.
To be clear, I think all business interests and influence should be severely limited from politics, but that just isn't the world in which we live. The world we live in allows a disproportionate amount of influence from all industries, with plenty of real world examples from across the entire political spectrum.
If we want to have a conversation about removing corporate interests entirely, I'm game, but I'm not willing to entertain some false notion that only liberals use these tools and certainly not willing to say only conservatives can use those tools as cudgels.
The majority can still be wrong, or make immoral democratic decisions. It is our job as citizens, all citizens (even business owners), to rally against unjust law and public policy.
It is the very rights that US foundational documents express as inalienable that allow workplace leadership to express pain and dismay at democratic decisions.
If you're doing meaningful work, you're changing things in the world.
Changing things in the world is necessarily and inevitably political.
If the workplace appears politically neutral, then one of two things must be true. Either what you're doing doesn't affect the outside world, or there are hidden, unstated political motives at work.
I would much prefer my company's leadership to acknowledge the politics inherent in our work and openly state their motives and point of view.
Doing otherwise is either meaningless or dishonest.
I don't accept that as a truism; most work is maintaining the historically unprecedented comfort that we enjoy as a society and I think that is meaningful.
Providing food is meaningful, providing shelter is meaningful, extracting raw resources is meaningful, taxation and welfare are meaningful, taxation and government services are meaningful. I could go io but that covers the basic point.
And since we are talking about a specific company, I don't even necessarily accept that the folk at Google are changing the world more than anyone else. I don't know anyone personally who's commented that 'wow Google has really changed my life' since the introduction of Gmail about 15 years ago. So, whatever they are doing it isn't very visible. Most of the improvement in the technological world is startups and the work of the circuit people.
I'm amazed to read that you don't think these things don't change the world. And more so that you don't think these things are political!
Agriculture is political. Land development is political. Resource extraction is political. Taxation is political.
As GP said:
> there are hidden, unstated political motives at work.
Those technologies do not require Google to be politically active in any way. Saying they are inherently political is like saying a supermarket is inherently political. Might be true in some technical sense, but practically most people are happy to call it a public good.
> happy to call it a public good
Some supermarkets cut prices in half in advance of Hurricane Florence that is expected to make landfall today.
Other supermarkets maximize profitability and eliminated sale prices and discounts in advance of the hurricane.
Some supermarkets have large, prominent displays of unhealthy foods. Others emphasize healthy alternatives.
Sometimes merchandising decisions are purely profit-maximizing, other times they're trying to do good for their community while simultaneously making a profit.
If even a supermarket is political, how do you expect internet giants to be somehow non-political?
Virtually everything that they do involves tradeoffs that some people like and others don't.
You can do meaningful work that will generate value/change that is largely unaffected by the political landscape (within reason). Sure every company would love tax breaks and subsidies but let's be realistic here.
> I would much prefer my company's leadership to acknowledge the politics inherent in our work and openly state their motives and point of view.
Most do. Companies just tend to avoid aligning themselves with a party and strictly speak of only specific issues and how said issue should be addressed to benefit their interests.
What a silly argument.
Additionally, advocating for policy changes is far different than acting out like this about specific candidates.
Finally, the fear on display here is mostly the fear that comes from ignorance. It is astounding that a company that prides itself in knowing things would be so ignorant of such a large part of the US population, and would apply such unsavory labels to them and their intentions.
Is antibiotics development changing the world? I should hope so. Do bacteria care about which presidential candidate won? Absolutely not. Most fields, in fact, do not involve the acrimonious political issues of the day.
The idea that "everything is political" is a lame excuse that activists use to hack politics into spaces where it doesn't belong. Even if a field has some tenuous connection to some political principle somewhere, bringing the political aspect to the fore only creates distractions and sows division.
Workplaces can and should be non-political and denying that political neutrality is possible is a particularly annoying strain of political activism.
No personal swipes, please. Your comment would be fine without that.
Bacteria don't care about anything, but the people developing and prescribing antibiotics very often do care, for reasons directly connected to their work (and those concerns may not be in the same direction.)
The problem with attempting to force a politically neutral stance is that it allows politics to invade where it shouldn't. Your logic is fundamentally flawed.
If you're literally not willing to listen to any arguments for/against a hypothesis at all, then sure, you're likely more invested in the political aspect than the science itself. But if you're just arguing in favor of what the majority of the established literature suggests, then no, because being pro-science is orthogonal to politics, and arguing in favor of research doesn't make one political. Just because one particular subset of science gets latched onto by politicians, doesn't make it an inherently political subject any more than people who argue that the moon landing is fake make video/image editing an inherently conspiratorial subject. I also wouldn't be accusing others of flawed logic when making an argument that relies on guilt-by-association.
We're talking about people latching themselves to an anti-empirical evidence, anti-scientific approach to things such as climate change or vaccinations. The debate becomes political when there's enough people and policymakers believing in something, scientific process be damned, to actively affect law.
The debate about vaccinations causing autism for example is a absolutely political one, enough that we see people eschewing scientific fact in a way that endangers large portions of our society. Yet when we talk about an environment needing to be politically neutral, then their opinion must be treated with equal weight. We've seen this occur with people who are anti-evolution as well, where they demand their opinions be taken seriously and allowed into the greater debate. And it shows with our current society.
No, that is absolutely not how science works. There's a reason why scientists undergo a peer review process to publish papers, and why journals have an "impact factor" score: it's because they're not all equal, and it takes an incredibly long time to become established as credible inside of academia.
If you're referring to the casual layman bickering that happens in the peanut gallery surrounding certain scientific results, then sure, all kinds of people with ulterior motives jump on those kinds of bandwagons and flamewars. But the scientific process itself does not (or at least tries not to) work that way, thus serving as a counterpoint to the idea that "everything is political".
And even then to counter your opinion: Who do you think helps fund and provides resources for said scientific research? This is part of the claims made by laymen that connects politics to the scientific process.
Political policy determines how the FDA regulates (or doesn't regulate) drugs, including antibiotics. Political policy determines if taxpayer dollars are spent getting antibiotics to those who need them, or on missiles instead. Political policy determines whether doctors are incentivized to minimize antibiotic prescriptions (and prevent superbugs) or not.
The idea that anything isn't political is unfortunately naive. It's like saying the air we breathe isn't important because we don't notice it.
If we're talking about a company, everything from the regulations it follows, to the ways it negotiates with labor, to the taxes it pays, the liability it passes on to consumers (or doesn't)... it's all political, because it's all determined/constrained by political policy.
Saying that workplaces should be non-political is a political statement, and by definition a conservative one because it embraces the status quo.
You can't escape politics even if you'd like to, and if you're the citizen of a democratic country then one can easily argue it's your civic duty not to escape it, though of course you're free to neglect that duty.
> Political policy determines how the FDA regulates...
That's exactly what I mean when I talk about a tendentious excuse for putting activism where it doesn't belong. A drug company might have a lobbying arm that has to care about policy (and that, for pragmatic purposes, talks to all sides!), but a researcher looking at chromosomal recombination isn't going to do a better job of examining the damn chromosomes after being subject to political screeds. If anything, politics in that venue will distract researchers and detract from the business's core. Is that cost worth it so that some people can feel self-righteous?
> Saying that workplaces should be non-political is a a political statement, and by definition a conservative one
So, according to "crazygringo", neutrality is "by definition" supporting the opposition. Much George Bush. Very "with us or against us". Wow.
Re "by definition": see https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/cFzC996D7Jjds3vS9/arguing-by...
Would you please stop breaking the site guidelines like this?
They include: "Don't be snarky. Comments should get more civil and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive."
If the researcher refuses to politicize, he will be used as a tool by others who will. Play the game and win, or be used.
There is almost no such thing as polititcal neutrality. Every site, every piece of media and every search engine is likely to have some sort of bias you need to be aware of. There is an argument to be made that Google is a monopoly and should be reigned in, but coming at it from the stance of 'they have a political slant' seems ill-advised.
No it wasn't. Google was founded on being agnostic and giving you the most objective and representative view of the internet. If it didn't, it wouldn't have survived. Pagerank was not politically driven. It didn't care whether the links went to webpages that catered to larry page or brin's political ideology.
>  In actuality, I suspect that Google's "algorithm" involves a fair bit of "cheating" by having humans nudge the results.
We know it is. We know that they changed google news to appease large media companies. We know google seearch has been changed to appease large media companies. We know youtubee has been changed to appease large media companies.
The "do not evil" google of the 2000s died a long and slow death. The google of the 2010s has been quite biased. No longer is google objectively representing the internet as it is. It's representing the internet as page and brin wants it to be.
I don't know why people are celebrating it just because they are anti-trump. We know that there are tons of saudi, chinese and israeli money and influence in silicon valley. Do we really want a monopoly like google to be politically driven? Do we really want search and youtube to be politically driven?
Just because google is being manipulated in your favor today doesn't mean it is going to be manipulated in your favor tomorrow. It just surprises me so few people here seem to understand that.
Hooray! Pre-Google search sucked. It was really bad.
> The alternative is to go back to human gatekeepers.
I don't know what this means. Humans have never audited/controlled what gets indexed by crawlers. It's always automata unleashed on the data. It would be terribly unproductive to prune or tune the index with humans. However, using humans as a part of a feedback loop to tune an algorithm is a good idea [presumably all search engines do something like this].
Even in the early days of the internet, there were manually constructed listing of pages. Then, as the internet grew, there were manually curated listings. Then, these manually curated listings started to compete with crappy search engines. Eventually, as these search engines improved, the manual curation was delegated to a smaller niche of the information distribution market.
We could, in principle, go back to manual curation as the dominate method. That has been the status quo for almost all of human civilization. Doing so would destroy the internet as we know it (and would be politically impossible for that reason).
> Doing so would destroy the internet as we know it (and would be politically impossible for that reason).
IMO this is what renders this part of the discussion moot. Given this conclusion, it's not a valuable thread to pursue.
I'd say manual curation is bigger than ever, at least for news, it just happens via sites like reddit and HN.
It would be weird and worrying if Google selectively choose not to do that with information that might have political salience.
“Hillary Emails” should give you results based on global pagerank, whether or not you agree with the subjective assessments about the importance of Hillary’s emails. Silently substituting the pagerank of New York or the subjective judgment of a room of Googlers undercuts the signal. If you give me the option to filter by DC or LA pagerank, that’s fine. But there should always be some free, unfiltered pagerank available.
Actually, I don't think that's the case. Google has for a very long time considered a web site's reputation as part of a page's weight among search results.
IMO Google wasn't a primary transmission medium for fake news -- not like Facebook et al. So if you got to a fake news article from Google.com, you probably went looking for it.
To your point -- if you go searching for unique terms from the fake news articles, it seems reasonable/appropriate to show you the fake news websites from whence they came. It would be odd for Google to omit those sources that are likely the best/primary source of those terms. It might be reasonable to highlight the search results as coming from a source known to publish falsehoods. Like the "This site may harm your computer" warnings, it could be a clear flag for people to be skeptical. Unfortunately, it seems like they would be inheriting a morass of subjective or difficult to maintain criteria.
No, it's never been that; it's always been that it's algorithmically selected to promote the best information, whether the best answer to your question or, more recently through some of their mechanism, the information most likely to be useful in the absence of a specific request, considering a wide variety of general, (and, for very many years, location-based, and personalized) indicators of quality and likely utility. “Unfiltered” is exactly the opposite of what has always been Google's value proposition.
> “Hillary Emails” should give you results based on global pagerank
PageRank is the oldest and most primitive of the algorithms used in Google's rankings.
> Silently substituting the pagerank of New York or the subjective judgment of a room of Googlers undercuts the signal.
Neither of those things is suggested in the response given to the question.
> But there should always be some free, unfiltered pagerank available.
Are you seriously suggesting that Google is obligated to offer a version of its search engine using only its 1998 link ranking algorithm with none of the additional filtering and ordering criteria that have been developed I the last 20 years?
“Best” being the word doing the work here. There’s been some expectation that Google gives you “best” based on the wisdom of a very large, diverse group. The more it diverges from that, the more it risks losing trust as an impartial assistant.
>Are you seriously suggesting (pagerank)?
I might pick a more precise example after Google tells me the algorithm. I’m using pagerank as shorthand for the early period in which Google assessed “best” mainly through the wisdom of groups. It’s impossible to erase all subjectivity, and it’s never been perfectly objective, but that doesn’t make the goal less important. I wouldn’t object to later versions that address SEO gamesmanship, gives me local mobile results, etc.
Google’s problem is that the video shows people who most Americans would not trust to tell them what’s best, or how to find what’s best. People might trust Google to find out what most people say is best. Google risks making their judgment the product; but what got them this far was a sense they are skilled in reporting back something about the world.
Search results are always going to be biased the same way that any media is always going to be biased. Have the regimes of the 20th century not taught us that it's naive to think we can objectively correct for that without opening the possibility for significantly worse repercussions?
Mass-scale censorship other than that already implicit in algorithmic link ranking wasn't suggested, improving the quality of the algorithms already in use and intended to provide he best information (which false propaganda is emphatically not) was suggested.
Having humans interpret what is real/fake is hard to do without bias, cheating, manipulation, favoritism and so much more.
Google knows social signal processing, it could implement ranking/scoring based on sites like PolitiFact and how many major news outlets are covering it, how the bios of the writers/contributors are - what the social graph of their reach is yaddy yaddy yadda.
We have signals for so much - that even humans use to sort/score what is real/what isn't. An AI would be able to do much of this based on social graphs and understanding of sources, targets, links, attributions and so much more.
For me, the scary thing isn't using AI to filter known lies, the scary thing is that we have AI that can do this but don't do anything because we have let the value of fake news be worth more than the value of standing for truth.
Google as a news broker is literally just showing you what Google wants to show you. I don't know why you'd think they wouldn't have a bias, or filter their output based on it. All media does.
Search, Android, YouTube. All three of those are either monopolies or close to it. YouTube by itself is worth a solid 20 times what the NY Times is.
Breitbart is maybe worth $100m, a top 100 US Web site with a couple million readers.
The NY Times is a $3.6b business, with maybe 10x the daily readership of Breitbart (and a much more lucrative readership of course).
If those two want to duke it out with each other, fine. Just like with Fox or MSNBC. None of them possess monopoly positions, much less in extraordinarily large, critical information pathways, as with search, YouTube and Android.
If Microsoft had acted in 1999-2000, during its peak Windows monopoly power, to use the desktop + IE in some manner to try to throw the Bush v Gore election in favor of Bush, the Democrats would have more than lost their minds over that. It would have been considered an extraordinary abuse of monopoly power by Microsoft. Google is going to soon find out they've unleashed a political genie that is never going back into the bottle.
In comparison, Facebook made just 40 billion in revenue, but more people get their news from Facebook today than anywhere else. So really it's Facebook that's let the genie out, and they didn't need to be the wealthiest corporation or a monopoly to do it.
These are large corporations made up of lots of people and represent a wide array of shareholders' concerns. But individual billionaires also own media companies, and thus can have greater personal influence on what is expressed through those companies. https://www.forbes.com/sites/katevinton/2016/06/01/these-15-...
To think they don’t exist is almost as ignorant as the people they’re referring to.
The non-STEM courses are particularly a cesspool of telling you what to think. They grade you on it. Politically incorrect opinions, no matter how well argued, will badly damage your grade or worse.
I learned a lot but I don't think college made me a "conservative". I was mortified to see our University president on TV demanding religious exemption from birth control in employee health insurance.
I want my search engine to make me smarter and better informed and not baby me with only the content I already know or believe. In that respect, I don’t want censorship. But I also don’t want it to try and feed me just any old information that happens to be sitting around.
Even if they were doing this overtly to promote a political view rather than to address the problem—false information—that the question expressly raises, this would be protected political speech.
> This doesn't seem very neutral to me.
Even if it didn't (and the actual answer to the actual question does
not suggest political bias unless false propaganda uniquely favors one side), so what? What corporation, particularly in the business of distributing current events information, is strictly politically neutral? Certainly none of the ones pushing the narrative that this should be considered disturbing.
Spam filtering is arguably using AI to manipulate what the user sees. In that case, it's less spam. A lot of AI is focused on finding what's the most interesting/valuable to the user, removing "bad" data, etc.
Members of most political parties, arguably, would like fake news and misinformation to be curated away, it's just that those parties often disagree with what news is "fake".
It works with much of internet content, because formal communication has proper structure. But that is beside the point.
The real question is - who is responsible for classifying the training data? And what makes them qualified?
I can appreciate that they were disappointed in the election results. I am shocked to see leaders of a Fortune 100 company responding this way, in that forum. What are they thinking? That there is no legitimate reason for voting against Hillary? That all who have a different opinion than them are evil?
I have been really skeptical about James Damore- and I still think he’s a tragic clown, but now I am rethinking a few things:
Google appears to be a liberal monoculture that cannot understand legitimate alternative viewpoints.
Google’s leadership has no instinct to curb potentially controversial opinions in front of their own ranks. Clearly, no libertarians or conservatives work at google. Who would tolerate this kind of intolerance from their employer?
Google may be involved in a lot of manipulative things, but trying to distinguish between blatantly incorrect sources of information and the rest does not seem like a shady political motive to me, and there overall goal seems worthwhile to me. Encyclopedias and scientific journals also manipulate what people are seeing and I don't think filtering mechanisms in general are problematic; it depends on how the information is selected, and if this is done through a good process, it can be very beneficial.
Also, the company as a hole supports both parties - their lobbying efforts (and campaign contributions) are more diverse, which makes sense since you don't want to bet everything on a single horse/party.
And "misinformation" and "fake news" will be combatted by AI? Seriously? That is like saying, "I have no clue but I will use some buzzwords". Pichai/GOOG knows AI better than everyone. I think they still don't have plan for combatting misinformation.
I think they are going to fail, and quietly increase the human involvement once they realize that their AI isn't good enough. Then they will slowly scale back the humans as their AI improves, until the next controversy when they realize that they still need humans.
Exactly. AI is not good at subjective decisions of qualitative data. For example, nobody knows any political candidate's net worth apart from IRS, until they make those records public. And say political candidates make statements that they are way less or way more than their net worth they cannot detect it is true or false.
That's why I was surprised. Pichai is smart enough that AI can't combat fake news. Hence he was just saying to save face.
As others have said, evaluating trust on the internet using computers (call it AI or not) is literally Google's core competency.
There is no solution that scales up to billions of users, and while it's true that AI most likely won't work, it is the best they've got right now. Do you have a better solution? Because Google has hired some of the smartest people and even then they still are having issues with Youtube every other week, so I'm sure you'd be paid a pretty hefty sum if you could solve this.
Let the receiver evaluate the information? Sure, some will have false believes. Cannot change that and you shouldn't even attempt to do so. Because authority has been wrong to an equal degree.
The whole premise falls flat in my opinion.
There won't be any viable solution, if the problem cannot even be defined. Currently it is based on a feeling that there are mean and false statements on social media.
And this fact is emphasized by parties who like more control about content.
Anyone aware of the current capabilities of AI should know, that it is no solution, at least in its current state. Sure, big tech likes to signal otherwise. But these statements just underline their business interest in that sector. Nothing wrong with that.
Wanting to tighten control about content is.
This ignores one of Google's primary missions. As jlebar posted in a different comment
> evaluating trust on the internet using computers (call it AI or not) is literally Google's core competency.
This idea that we should pretend as if there is no problem to solve seems incredibly strange to me. Particularly when we know unreliable information is being weaponized by bad actors to influence entire populations of people. This is a very real problem which needs solving.
Humans have limited time for research and we value reliability. Consider all of the hype around the recent severe decline in trust of authenticity and reliability of products purchased through Amazon. We tend to prefer shopping at places where we know the products we purchase will be of a certain standard. We go to trusted sources (as amazon was previously) because we don't have the time to carefully evaluate each of the many many items we purchase every week. We choose a store we trust will have already done that quality check.
It seems as if Google believes it is important for it's business that the information it prioritizes has a certain quality or reliability level. Google prefers their information be more like a Target store than a back alley tent. And if the amount of people who shop at Target stores over back alley tents is any indicator, I'm guessing Google is probably on to something.
I'm certainly skeptical about who should be able to decide what is "true" on subjective issues, but I don't see how we can pretend as if there isn't a very real problem of actual provably false information being weaponized.
I for one am fairly busy and just as I don't have time to do a deep dive of research into whether or not the shampoo, deodorant, milk, cereal, orange juice, whiskey, dish soap, cold medicine etc etc etc are fake; I also don't have time to deep dive research if the 30+ articles I skim everyday are provable outright lies. Not only don't I have the time, I don't necessarily have the inclination.
we don't just prefer; we pay to shop at places where we trust that the products will be of high quality (or at least authentic).
no one i know around my age pays for any news whatsoever (including myself, admittedly). this should tell you something about how much we value quality news.
There is a somewhat working solution, but it might be incompatible with American voter (for some time) https://www.scmp.com/news/china/poliitics/article/2162036/ch...
That's exactly the core strength of AI. It is what differentiates AI from hard coded solutions. Estimations(subjective decisions) based on correlations in fuzzy (qualitative) data.
In your example, you could take a set of data containing the net worths and other characteristics, e.g. birth zip code, spending habits, affiliations, and if there are any trends related to net worth, a properly architected neural network trained on the appropriate data could easily estimate subjectively on what amounts to qualitative data.
If you mean humans rating every new page on the Internet in real time, this isn't possible. It's machines or nothing.
There are like days of lag, in search engine results, unless you eagerly, eagerly, eagerly force your way into strategic points of the existing index for each independent search engine, separately.
Nevermind DNS replication, which is it's own beast. So, from domain registration, to DNS replication, to getting listed, to becoming relevant (which requires all kinds of meta tags and dom restructuring for crawlability, plus roll-your-own-site-maps, and so on), to being recognized as a reliable source of information, such as press releases, before we even get to news possibly going viral?
Well, news actually doesn't even go viral without humans in the loop. I mean consider how viral a high karma rank gets you on hacker news? It's just enough to get 10K eyes on a site in unison, to overwhelm a non-load-balanced server. And that's the voting of users doing all the work.
And then to include heavier social sites like reddit, twitter and facebook in the mix? That's almost purely human opinion performing the ranking factor. The attention of the users closes the feedback loop, and the chain reaction can strap a booster rocket to notoriety.
So, I'd almost say the really real time (like viral real time) stuff is almost only humans doing the work, and the robots are just there for the chatter threshold tripwires.
There’s a lot wrong with your post, but let’s start here. How do you think DNS works? Your statements about it indicate a complete lack of knowledge on the topic. I can register a new domain and have it resolveable anywhere in the world in minutes.
How did we get to the state where the "truth" is such an elusive concept?
Is it so hard to determine whether basic statements are true or false? And to build larger, higher constructs out of those building blocks? That's basically what science has been and is.
It seems comically easy to identify fake news in most cases. Was this inauguration crowd larger than that one? That's a simple question to answer.
Simply getting computers to understand the statements is one of the holy grails of AI research; let alone determining if they are true.
Look into the fields of epistemology and the philosophy of science, in particular the works of Karl Popper such as The Logic of Scientific Discovery. The "truth" has always been an elusive concept. Outside the realm of mathematics, it's rather difficult to objectively prove most things "true".
That, in essence, is how we got here. There are plenty of loud, vocal defenders of "truth" out there, it's just that the loudest and most vocal of them define "truth" to mean "what our side believes".
The public at large has never been particularly well connected to truth. One difference now is that, in the past, the public at least respected and trusted scientists, academics, etc. Nowadays they're scorned.
This isn't political bias against conservative economic ideas, or even classic social conservatism, this is bias against racism and bigotry. And were they wrong? Two years later, everything people had been worrying about in this TGIF got worse.
Every few weeks some new dog whistle is blown.
There are some things which are just wrong, that if you're not a coward, you take a stand against. I hope any congressional testimony over this is combative, not milquetoast PR speak. Rather than spin, come right out and say: the company's values stand against racism and bigotry, and if Ted Cruz melts like a snowflake over it, so be it.
It is possible to vote Republican without wholly supporting - let alone personally imitating - everything that Trump does, just as it is possible to vote Democrat without wholly supporting everything Obama did.
You vote for the party that gives you the most of what you want and has a reasonable chance of being elected. Rarely if ever will you be entirely satisfied with their personal behavior or policies once in office.
You saw the word "conservative" and BOOM it's right into the Us vs. Them, Me vs. You, Good vs. Evil. I just don't see how that is healthy, at all, for anyone or anything including the country. It's childish. Social media and karma/upvotes/likes/karma/fake-internet-points, whatever you want to call it, has devolved us into kids on the schoolyard.
United we stand, divided we fall. grow up
Votes for women, emancipation of slaves, equal rights for women, for blacks, for gays, for the transgendered, worker protections, abolition of child labour, mandatory paid leave, maternity leave, environmental protections etc.
The list could go on, and in each and every instance we have had conservatives and traditionalists fighting them tooth and nail, and losing the battle every single time.
While the comment the person you replied to is short and lacking in substance, I do think there is truth to it.
What's that old Buddhist maxim?
Change is the only constant in life or You cannot change the wind, but you can adjust your sails.
Change is a certainty, but conservatives and traditionalists have made it their life's work to resist it.
Or the people who burn their shoes and lose their minds every time someone (who is black) kneels at a football game. Those are the monsters.
There's no reason anyone has to respect ethno-nationalist views against immigrants.
> immigrant outcomes differ by orders of magnitude by country and that this has considerable implications for the immigration debate and that many of the arguments made by the left for illegal immigration & open borders range from ignorant to outright lying with statistics.
In 2014 Havard fellow Eugen Dimant did a study on immigration from corrupt countries, with the consistent finding that "Immigration from corruption-ridden countries boosts corruption in the destination country."
To put forth either of these as reasons to restrict immigration from one set of countries, and encourage immigration from another, almost always gets you labeled a racist, ethno-nationalist, etc. If you don't believe you will be called that, I invite you to try and discuss them pro/con style (pretending you are fairly convinced) with some of your more liberal coworkers, and see what they say.
Just being immigration-skeptic in general now often leads to such charges, which is absurd. The most basic rational reason of all is very simple: If the fundamental mechanic of democracy is that the people vote and these votes matter, then every citizen should have a strong interest in making sure that the criteria for being a citizen is in place to attract good citizens and repel bad ones. Instead, we can barely talk about it.
That is the very definition of racism. You're ascribing negative traits to specific races/ethnicities/countries, and using that as justification for discriminating against all individuals from that demographic.
If you want to advocate for racist policies as being pragmatic and in the public interests, go ahead and make that argument. But at least have the honesty to call it what it is.
FWIW, I don't think racism and stereotypes make for good public policy, no matter how "true" they may seem. This was the same logic used to discriminate against Irish, Italian and Eastern-European immigrants, and I don't think it's worth going down that same road once again. We can build a sensible immigration policy based on individual merit, without debasing ourselves into racist ideologies.
When the left talk about toxic and destructive masculinity and suggest policy to address it then that is using clear language and decisive action about a structural issue in society.
We could be making sensible policies based on each individuals own merit and it would be great. No more women vs men, immigrant vs nationalist, white vs black. It is the future I would like to have but what I am getting is the choice between two ideologies who each ascribing negative traits to their own set of races and gender, with policies to match.
Equality of this kind is a topic that could create common ground between liberal left and libertarian right, with policies and laws that focus on the individual and human behavior rather than groups. It would mean giving up having a group that each side can point at and blame for all faults in society, and the cynical in me would say that this means its political impossible, but it would make for a better world and possible push people to towards each other rather than apart.
Good for you. Any ideas about how to get people talking about "toxic masculinity" and "evil whiteness" day and night on board? How about people that call for "white genocide"?
> I would consider anyone espousing such ideology to be racist/sexist by definition.
OK. But would the consequences of this definition for someone publicly talking about "toxic masculinity" as something common to most/all males be the same as being an open misogynist, for example? And if not, do you think it's wrong and how would you propose to change it?
> I'm sure the majority of Clinton voters feel similarly as I do.
Do they? How comes somebody like Farrakhan is still very much welcome to the polite society on the left?
Is your contention that the main thing about the election of Trump that upset the people in this video that he took a cooly rational stance against some forms of immigration?
Banning all Muslims -- including citizens and visa holders -- from entering the country does not seem to be aligned with this position.
Saying that a judge was unqualified to do his job because of where his parents were born does not seem to be aligned with this position.
Blasting the family of a soldier who died saving others on the basis of their race and religion does not seem to be aligned with this position.
If your point is that you're frustrated that Trump has lowered the standards of intellectual dialog in the country, well, join the club, friend.
(Or worse, lumping any positions into support for whatever they're doing.)
Trump does not work at Google, Trump supporters at Google may support his policies, or not, and for his reasons or for their own reasons. Conservatives more generally have claimed Google is intolerant of their views, which is the reason this video is making the rounds in the first place.
So I disagree, I do not think this is very specifically about Trump. I think this is about workplace discussion of political issues, and for that matter is an issue in SV that pre-dates Trump. For example from 2015: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/04/closete...
There are plenty of reasons to be against the current immigration regime that don't involve ethno-nationalism but it's nearly impossible to forward any such arguments without being accused of being an ethno-nationalist.
Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC) told the Post and Courier that his South Carolina colleague Sen. Lindsey Graham, who attended the meeting, told him Trump’s reported comments were “basically accurate.”
And Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ), who also didn’t attend the meeting, told the Washington Post he heard about Trump’s comments before they went public, and they matched the later reports.
Anonymous Republican sources have pushed the story that Trump in fact used the phrase “shithouse countries.” According to the Washington Post’s Josh Dawsey, Robert Costa, and Ashley Parker, Sens. Tom Cotton (R-AR) and David Perdue (R-GA) told the White House that’s what they remember Trump saying in the meeting.
Trump has apparently decided that the controversy is hurting him politically, so his allies are using this minor discrepancy to justify public denials that he said “shithole.”
If 100 people out of 100,000 who migrate cause problems, and they are all fleeing intolerable living conditions, then the only reasonable way you can say that all 100,000 should be shut out is if you value the welfare of the 99,900 so low that it is outweighed by the social harm caused by the 100 even after taking into account the benefits of migration.
Where did you get your 5 million from?
> On 7 June, a Federal Criminal Police Office report confirmed that most of the perpetrators were of North African origin and had arrived in Germany during the European migrant crisis. Investigative results about the perpetrators were congruent with witnesses' statements.
I'll leave it to you to research crime numbers like rape, theft andn such for carneval in Cologne or the Oktoberfest in Munich. Because These are the numbers that provide the context.
Disclaimer: That does not in the slightest way imply that any of These cases are defendable, the least of all rape. Still, context helps to prevent knee-jerk reactions.
Intolerance against different opinions oppose any dissenting views that shares the same goal but not the strategy to reach it. Equality feminism vs diversity feminism, open source vs free software, and so on.
A person can be for immigration enforcement and NOT be an ethno-smethmo whateveryourecallingit. If you don't control your border, you're not a nation.
I don't know who the pope of modern intersectionality is, so I don't know what It dictates. But your formulation, if applied to abolitionists, would read like "Abolitionists dictate that people should be treated very differently based on whether they are currently enslaved"
But are you?
I am sorry, but this is one of the most useless definitions I've read lately. Almost any human activity and any point of view can be described as "about how one describes reality", from quantum gravity theory to buddhism. And, on top of that, it does not contradict the premise bitlax described above.
I am all for thinking critically but if you proclaim that the description above is wrong - and not only just wrong, but so obviously wrong as the wrongness to be obvious to the author, and thus "bad faith" - I think the minimum requirement for you would be to produce a better definition. And "read the wikipedia, it's all there" is not providing a better one.
Popper is talking about not permitting of force as a mechanism for dispute resolution. The "paradox of tolerance" isn't a paradox at all. It's just a bludgeon people use to suppress free speech. It's ridiculous to claim that a discussion of the proper level of immigration is a threat to discourse generally.
Japan for example accepted only 27 refugees in one year while rejecting 7,586 according to the Brookings Institute. South Korea accepted only 94 in one year. Refugees are pretty much shut off from Singapore and China and many other Asian countries.
I'm curious why these countries don't receive the same flak for their "ethno-nationalist" views against immigrants. There are no boycotts against buying goods from these countries as they are with Trump hotels.
EDIT: I see that you work for Google. Your company is censoring content on behalf of the communist government in China despite their "ethno-nationalist" views against immigrants (not to mention their abysmal human rights record). What's the explanation?
> He has however repeatedly refused to openly say he supports "open borders"
Come on. If the person does not say "open borders" for tactical reasons, it doesn't mean he doesn't support the concept, especially if he says "no creo en fronteras".
> The push to abolish ICE and for sanctuary cities is a reaction to injustice committed in the name of the law by ICE specifically.
So let's say police and courts do an injustice (that happens a lot) and you say you want now to abolish police and courts. Would it be unfair to say you object to law enforcement? If yes, then you'd have to explain how do you see law enforcement absent police and courts. Or recognize that - for whatever reasons you arrived to this position - you are now doing exactly that. Somebody who objects to enforcement of immigration laws - as a whole, not in specific cases - must either explain how it is not "open borders" - and the burden of proof is on them - or recognize that's what they are for. Even if it is tactically uncomfortable.
> All the talk about "open borders" comes from conservatives purposely exaggerating and mis-characterizing their opponents' views
Please explain how "open borders" is mischaracterizing "yo no creo en fronteras". Maybe my Spanish is worse than I thought it is - what exactly does it mean then?
This is text book whataboutism. Just because someone isn't publicly complaining about Y doesn't make their criticism of X any less relevant.
This policy, while controversial in itself, has nothing to do with what you perceive as “stifling” of Breitbart in, I presume, American search results. I’d argue that this is nearly blatantly untrue - try searching for a term that Breitbart has written about, and you’ll find results at the top  or for Breitbart itself, and you’ll get a full-featured overview of Breitbart content and articles .
What evidence is there that Breitbart is stifled by Google?
And you really Need an Explanation why a company adopts to reuls in specific country (not saying it is good thing) and treats a (fringe) news outlet differently (not sure if they actually do, so)?
You cannot utter even the most platonic of right wing sentiments without the shrieks of frantic lunatics accusing you of being Hitler himself.
This idea of taboo subjects is exploited by nefarious far left activists, not for the cause of 'decency' or the preservation of western liberalism, but as a bludgeon to silence all thoughtcrime of the right.
> There's no reason anyone has to respect ethno-nationalist views against immigrants.
There's something called "political Turing test". The essence is that if you can not convincingly describe a position of an opposing side - in a way that they'd agree it is close to what they believe in - then you are not fit to discuss this position intelligently. Unfortunately, from the video is pretty clear almost nobody of those who spoke there would pass this test on anything related to anybody who voted for Trump. Yet they feel fully entitled to deny basic respect to people they didn't even bother to understand. And yet they feel smugly morally superior about it.
Narcissist finds it convienient to assume all who disagree with them are ethnonationalists.
This is a very vague statement, you can apply to your convenience. You could say Damore broke the principle and justify any penalty against him. I could say you don't follow this civility premise by choosing your partner based on your gender.
Every country in the world has "ethno-nationalist views against immigrants", and things work fine.
Painting people you don't like as "intolerant" and "deserving of persecution" was precisely how Hitler convinced Germans that it was okay to kill Jews.